I thought we could have some riveting conversation that would make guerilla think I'm a huge fascist. Slander and libel is knowingly providing and spreading false information with the intent to hurt the reputation of another. This is morally wrong and you should be sued into the ground for it.
Tell me, do you think there is such a thing as absolute morality? I.e.: No matter who you are or where you're from doing X is immoral?
The purpose of this thread seemed to be putting up a statement. Doesn't seemed to allow for a discussion, or is this thread prepared only for Guerilla?
Everything starts with a statement lol. Do you agree/disagree? Why? Seems easy to debate if you're willing to do it. Yeah, because expressing your opinion on the topic is just so brutally removed your power lol.
I don't believe people "own" their reputations. How can you own what someone(s) else think of you? How can I own Wisdomtool's opinion of me? Simply, I cannot. So the notion of owning a reputation, or that your reputation can be "damaged" when it's actually held in the minds of others, seems pretty silly to me. What is also silly, is suing everyone under the sun every time you want to use the power of state violence to impose your will on others. Now lying? That's immoral. But good luck trying to enforce a law that demands complete honesty at all times. I don't think people would ever reproduce again!
What? You argued straight out that When you say something is moral in some way or another, you are claiming that there is absolute morality. Now tell me, do you honestly believe in absolute morality?
In slander and Libel cases you have to show harm done in a monetary sense, as Libel and slander is not criminal but civil. You can state any option you like; as long as you do not suggest action be taken to harm or 527s would be in court 24/7.
Start another thread. This isn't about ownership. It's about people being liable for their speech. Courts are a good thing.
Liable for what? Saying mean things? Lying? What are they liable for? They can't be liable for damaging your reputation. You don't own your reputation. Are they liable for creating a loss? What did you lose and why? If you like using unjust laws to punish people to make up for your own inadequacies in love, business and relationships. Then yeah, I can see why someone would like courts.
People should be held liable for what they say. Let's examine a few places. Let's say you own your own daycare. It's the way you earn your living, it's something you love and you have a very extensive client base, as well as a huge waiting list. Now, let's say, I don't like you and call up the CPA and tell them you molest children and are distributing child pornography on the internet. You can probably say good buy to the next 6 months of your business, good bye to your client base, and good bye to your reputation. Am I liable for what I said? ------------ Second scenario. You goto the doctor. You have a really bad sore throat. The doctor advises you that it is best for you to drink ammonium chloride when you get home. When you get home, you drink it and it burns your asophigus and the rest of your internal organs almost killing you. Should the doctor be held liable for his speech? --------------- Let's say you're looking to build a bridge. You hire a civil engineer that draws up some graphs. While on sight, he tells you that you can use super glue to attach those two 5 ton steal beams. The bridge collapses while you're on it. Is the engineer held liable for his speech?
Sounds like you are against free speech to me. Nope. You are not liable. If people choose to react to rumor and innuendo, if they do not properly investigate, that is their problem. If a CPA reacts without investigating, it will very quickly lose it's reputation as a reliable source of information. That's not an example of slander or libel. This is also not an example of slander or libel.
"Slander and libel is knowingly providing and spreading false information with the intent to hurt the reputation of another." Fox News has done this to Obama on MANY occasions. A great example is this: They know Barack Obama is not a Muslim yet they've ran many stories with the intent of getting their viewers to think he might be. ... Certainly Obama is just one of their targets. They've targeted many liberals with slander since they've began their operation as a "news" network.
Thats Obama's fault. He's for media consolidation. He's for everything that is the antithesis of what he talks about. Check out his voting record. Being a Muslim isn't his deficiency. Being a total sellout is. Obama is not a liberal. He votes to continue an illegal, unjust war and has endorsed undermining the Constitution for "security". He's just a weak version of the neocons, who are themselves originally liberal leftists. Andrew Jackson was a liberal. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Obama is not a liberal.